The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements
Open accessAbstract
Recent hardware and software advances have enabled simulation studies of protein systems on biophysically-relevant timescales, often revealing the need for improved force fields. Although early force field development was limited by the lack of direct comparisons between simulation and experiment, recent work from several labs has demonstrated direct calculation of NMR observables from protein simulations. Here we quantitatively evaluate recent molecular dynamics force fields against a suite of 524 chemical shift and J coupling ((3)JH(N)H(α), (3)JH(N)C(β), (3)JH(α)C', (3)JH(N)C', and (3)JH(α)N) measurements on dipeptides, tripeptides, tetra-alanine, and ubiquitin. Of the force fields examined (ff96, ff99, ff03, ff03*, ff03w, ff99sb*, ff99sb-ildn, ff99sb-ildn-phi, ff99sb-ildn-nmr, CHARMM27, OPLS-AA), two force fields (ff99sb-ildn-phi, ff99sb-ildn-nmr) combining recent side chain and backbone torsion modifications achieve high accuracy in our benchmark. For the two optimal force fields, the calculation error is comparable to the uncertainty in the experimental comparison. This observation suggests that extracting additional force field improvements from NMR data may require increased accuracy in J coupling and chemical shift prediction. To further investigate the limitations of current force fields, we also consider conformational populations of dipeptides, which were recently estimated using vibrational spectroscopy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Predicting Absolute Ligand Binding Free Energies to a Simple Model Site
Mobley, D. L., Graves, A. P., Chodera, J. D., McReynolds, A. C., Shoichet, B. K., & Dill, K. A. (2007) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.06.002 · Cited by 310
Cited by
Perspective: Coarse-grained models for biomolecular systems
Noid, W. G. (2013) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.4818908 · Cited by 893
Improved Peptide and Protein Torsional Energetics with the OPLS-AA Force Field
Robertson, M. J., Tirado-Rives, J., & Jorgensen, W. L. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00356 · Cited by 854
Deep learning for computational chemistry
Goh, G. B., Hodas, N. O., & Vishnu, A. (2017) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.24764 · Cited by 809
To milliseconds and beyond: challenges in the simulation of protein folding
Lane, T. J., Shukla, D., Beauchamp, K. A., & Pande, V. S. (2013) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2012.11.002 · Cited by 409
Self-citationThe allosteric communication pathways in KIX domain of CBP
Palazzesi, F., Barducci, A., Tollinger, M., & Parrinello, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1313548110 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Beauchamp, K. A., Lin, Y.-S., Das, R., & Pande, V. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2012-03-23
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1409-1414
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-9626
- OpenAlex
- W2071827681
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ct2007814
- The paper
- Beauchamp, K. A., Lin, Y.-S., Das, R., & Pande, V. S. (2012). Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct2007814
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.